Is busing really an option?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Doesn't have to be closest, but should be reasonably close.

Sure. But what is "reasonably"? Who decides, based on what?

Based on common sense.
If there is a school which is considerably closer than the school a kid is assigned to, there needs to be a reason for that.
School capacity would be an acceptable reason. Traffic pattern? of course. Special needs? Maybe. Family reasons? Maybe. Other reasons? Maybe. Diversity? no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Doesn't have to be closest, but should be reasonably close.

Sure. But what is "reasonably"? Who decides, based on what?

Based on common sense.
If there is a school which is considerably closer than the school a kid is assigned to, there needs to be a reason for that.
School capacity would be an acceptable reason. Traffic pattern? of course. Special needs? Maybe. Family reasons? Maybe. Other reasons? Maybe. Diversity? no.

Whose common sense? Yours? Mine? My cat's veterinarian's neighbor's oldest cousin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Doesn't have to be closest, but should be reasonably close.

Sure. But what is "reasonably"? Who decides, based on what?

Based on common sense.
If there is a school which is considerably closer than the school a kid is assigned to, there needs to be a reason for that.
School capacity would be an acceptable reason. Traffic pattern? of course. Special needs? Maybe. Family reasons? Maybe. Other reasons? Maybe. Diversity? no.

Whose common sense? Yours? Mine? My cat's veterinarian's neighbor's oldest cousin?

If on a specific assignment, your common sense differs from mine, we can discuss that. If not, I don't see a reason for you to raise the issue.

[Anonymous]

I honestly don't see how it is legal to select areas based on the racial demographics of a neighborhood. If an area is selected to be rezoned to a different school further away than other schools because the criteria is to increase diversity then that is clearly selecting an area based on its racial makeup. I thought that there was case law that came out of Washington state making it illegal to use race in determining school assignments. How is MCPS going to get past the current ruling? This ruling came out when the court was more moderate/favorable to liberal interpretations. I don't see the current court overturning that case so that MCPS can make rezoning decisions based on race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't see how it is legal to select areas based on the racial demographics of a neighborhood. If an area is selected to be rezoned to a different school further away than other schools because the criteria is to increase diversity then that is clearly selecting an area based on its racial makeup. I thought that there was case law that came out of Washington state making it illegal to use race in determining school assignments. How is MCPS going to get past the current ruling? This ruling came out when the court was more moderate/favorable to liberal interpretations. I don't see the current court overturning that case so that MCPS can make rezoning decisions based on race.

they already use race and socioeconomic status when considering boundaries. not sure why they can't continue to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't see how it is legal to select areas based on the racial demographics of a neighborhood. If an area is selected to be rezoned to a different school further away than other schools because the criteria is to increase diversity then that is clearly selecting an area based on its racial makeup. I thought that there was case law that came out of Washington state making it illegal to use race in determining school assignments. How is MCPS going to get past the current ruling? This ruling came out when the court was more moderate/favorable to liberal interpretations. I don't see the current court overturning that case so that MCPS can make rezoning decisions based on race.

You're going to have to cite the case if you want folks to comment on how it is or is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Anonymous]

If PP is talking about the PICS case, it has no relevance to school attendance zones.

Seattle essentially doesn't have attendance zones for high schools, but wanted to use racial quotas to fill schools that more kids wanted to attend.

Even in deciding that case, though, SCOTUS affirmed that seeking diversity was a compelling state interest.

[Anonymous]

The Seattle case is on point. Courts have upheld voluntary integration efforts but the relevant outcome in the Seattle case is that schools could not use race for the purposes of involuntary school assignments. MCPS is already on record by voting to favor diversity over other factors. If MCPS does choose an area based on race and rezones it based on race to achieve diversity, people have standing to sue. I think it is highly likely that with the court in the hands of the conservatives that MCPS would lose this case.

This case would be entirely different than the discrimination investigation that MCPS is under now with the Office of Civil Rights over the magnet programs. In this situation, it is the reverse where MCPS is exercising white affirmative action by denying high performing asian students admission. This is a more classic case of minority racial discrimination with MCPS being on the side arguing for white affirmative action.

Its really interesting from a legal and political perspective. A jurist looking at existing law would most likely find MCPS wrong in both cases diversity bussing (A) and asian discrimination (B). A politically conservative white leaning individual would find MCPS wrong on (A) and right on (B). A liberal leaning white individual would find MCPS right on (A) and (B).

It also really begs the question as to how or even if public school systems should or even can seek diversity if legally they can not use race. A statement that seeking diversity is a compelling goal for the state but then knocking down the measures to achieve it does not mean that using those measures in a slightly different manner would ever be legal. If we had a functional administration it would be a good use of time for the DOE and lawyers from the DOJ and OCR to draft a guidance letter on what is legally advised and what is not but I guess none of these organizations will go this far just allowing local systems to flail about trying to figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Seattle case is on point. Courts have upheld voluntary integration efforts but the relevant outcome in the Seattle case is that schools could not use race for the purposes of involuntary school assignments. MCPS is already on record by voting to favor diversity over other factors. If MCPS does choose an area based on race and rezones it based on race to achieve diversity, people have standing to sue. I think it is highly likely that with the court in the hands of the conservatives that MCPS would lose this case.

This case would be entirely different than the discrimination investigation that MCPS is under now with the Office of Civil Rights over the magnet programs. In this situation, it is the reverse where MCPS is exercising white affirmative action by denying high performing asian students admission. This is a more classic case of minority racial discrimination with MCPS being on the side arguing for white affirmative action.

Its really interesting from a legal and political perspective. A jurist looking at existing law would most likely find MCPS wrong in both cases diversity bussing (A) and asian discrimination (B). A politically conservative white leaning individual would find MCPS wrong on (A) and right on (B). A liberal leaning white individual would find MCPS right on (A) and (B).

It also really begs the question as to how or even if public school systems should or even can seek diversity if legally they can not use race. A statement that seeking diversity is a compelling goal for the state but then knocking down the measures to achieve it does not mean that using those measures in a slightly different manner would ever be legal. If we had a functional administration it would be a good use of time for the DOE and lawyers from the DOJ and OCR to draft a guidance letter on what is legally advised and what is not but I guess none of these organizations will go this far just allowing local systems to flail about trying to figure it out.

No, they are not. That is not what the board voted on, that is just what DCUM keeps saying the board voted on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Seattle case is on point. Courts have upheld voluntary integration efforts but the relevant outcome in the Seattle case is that schools could not use race for the purposes of involuntary school assignments. MCPS is already on record by voting to favor diversity over other factors. If MCPS does choose an area based on race and rezones it based on race to achieve diversity, people have standing to sue. I think it is highly likely that with the court in the hands of the conservatives that MCPS would lose this case.

This case would be entirely different than the discrimination investigation that MCPS is under now with the Office of Civil Rights over the magnet programs. In this situation, it is the reverse where MCPS is exercising white affirmative action by denying high performing asian students admission. This is a more classic case of minority racial discrimination with MCPS being on the side arguing for white affirmative action.

Its really interesting from a legal and political perspective. A jurist looking at existing law would most likely find MCPS wrong in both cases diversity bussing (A) and asian discrimination (B). A politically conservative white leaning individual would find MCPS wrong on (A) and right on (B). A liberal leaning white individual would find MCPS right on (A) and (B).

It also really begs the question as to how or even if public school systems should or even can seek diversity if legally they can not use race. A statement that seeking diversity is a compelling goal for the state but then knocking down the measures to achieve it does not mean that using those measures in a slightly different manner would ever be legal. If we had a functional administration it would be a good use of time for the DOE and lawyers from the DOJ and OCR to draft a guidance letter on what is legally advised and what is not but I guess none of these organizations will go this far just allowing local systems to flail about trying to figure it out.

No, MCPS is not. DCUM keeps saying that this is what MCPS did, but MCPS didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Seattle case is on point. Courts have upheld voluntary integration efforts but the relevant outcome in the Seattle case is that schools could not use race for the purposes of involuntary school assignments. MCPS is already on record by voting to favor diversity over other factors. If MCPS does choose an area based on race and rezones it based on race to achieve diversity, people have standing to sue. I think it is highly likely that with the court in the hands of the conservatives that MCPS would lose this case.

This case would be entirely different than the discrimination investigation that MCPS is under now with the Office of Civil Rights over the magnet programs. In this situation, it is the reverse where MCPS is exercising white affirmative action by denying high performing asian students admission. This is a more classic case of minority racial discrimination with MCPS being on the side arguing for white affirmative action.

Its really interesting from a legal and political perspective. A jurist looking at existing law would most likely find MCPS wrong in both cases diversity bussing (A) and asian discrimination (B). A politically conservative white leaning individual would find MCPS wrong on (A) and right on (B). A liberal leaning white individual would find MCPS right on (A) and (B).

It also really begs the question as to how or even if public school systems should or even can seek diversity if legally they can not use race. A statement that seeking diversity is a compelling goal for the state but then knocking down the measures to achieve it does not mean that using those measures in a slightly different manner would ever be legal. If we had a functional administration it would be a good use of time for the DOE and lawyers from the DOJ and OCR to draft a guidance letter on what is legally advised and what is not but I guess none of these organizations will go this far just allowing local systems to flail about trying to figure it out.

No, they are not. That is not what the board voted on, that is just what DCUM keeps saying the board voted on.

Well, let's get more precise here: is MCPS planning to "use race for the purposes of involuntary school assignments. ", or use race as an important factor in doing so?

If so, is it something people can sue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Seattle case is on point. Courts have upheld voluntary integration efforts but the relevant outcome in the Seattle case is that schools could not use race for the purposes of involuntary school assignments. MCPS is already on record by voting to favor diversity over other factors. If MCPS does choose an area based on race and rezones it based on race to achieve diversity, people have standing to sue. I think it is highly likely that with the court in the hands of the conservatives that MCPS would lose this case.

This case would be entirely different than the discrimination investigation that MCPS is under now with the Office of Civil Rights over the magnet programs. In this situation, it is the reverse where MCPS is exercising white affirmative action by denying high performing asian students admission. This is a more classic case of minority racial discrimination with MCPS being on the side arguing for white affirmative action.

Its really interesting from a legal and political perspective. A jurist looking at existing law would most likely find MCPS wrong in both cases diversity bussing (A) and asian discrimination (B). A politically conservative white leaning individual would find MCPS wrong on (A) and right on (B). A liberal leaning white individual would find MCPS right on (A) and (B).

It also really begs the question as to how or even if public school systems should or even can seek diversity if legally they can not use race. A statement that seeking diversity is a compelling goal for the state but then knocking down the measures to achieve it does not mean that using those measures in a slightly different manner would ever be legal. If we had a functional administration it would be a good use of time for the DOE and lawyers from the DOJ and OCR to draft a guidance letter on what is legally advised and what is not but I guess none of these organizations will go this far just allowing local systems to flail about trying to figure it out.

No, they are not. That is not what the board voted on, that is just what DCUM keeps saying the board voted on.

Well, let's get more precise here: is MCPS planning to "use race for the purposes of involuntary school assignments. ", or use race as an important factor in doing so?

If so, is it something people can sue?

Here is the relevant section of MCPS Regulation FAA-RA:

4. Once the Board establishes the scope of changes of school boundaries and/or geographic student choice assignment plans that are under consideration, MCPS staff develop a range of options for stakeholder engagement, based on the four factors below, as set forth in Policy FAA, Educational Facilities Planning, and provides a rationale that demonstrates the extent to which any option advances each of these four factors:

a) Demographic characteristics of student populations

Pursuant to Board Policy FAA, Educational Facilities Planning, analyses of options take into account the impact of various options on the overall populations of affected schools. Options should especially strive to create a diverse student body in each of the affected schools in alignment with Board Policy ACD, Quality Integrated Education. This means that a key consideration is significant disparity in the demographic characteristics between schools in the affected geographic areas that cannot be justified by any other factor. Demographic data showing the impact of various options include the following: racial/ethnic composition of the student population, the socioeconomic composition of the student population, the level of English language learners, and other reliable demographic indicators and participation in specific educational programs. Options should also take into consideration the intersection between and among these categories of demographic data.

b) Geography

In accordance with MCPS’s emphasis on community involvement in schools, options should, unless otherwise required, take into account the geographic proximity of communities to schools, as well as articulation, traffic, transportation patterns (including public transit), and topography. As part of this analysis, walking access to the school and transportation distances should be considered. In addition, options should consider, at a minimum, not only schools within a high school cluster but also other adjacent schools.

c) Stability of school assignments over time

Options should result in stable assignments for as long a period of time as possible. Student reassignments should consider recent boundary or geographic student choice assignment plan changes, and/or school closings and consolidations that may have affected the same students.

d) Facility utilization

School boundary and geographic student choice assignment plans should result in facility utilizations in the 80 percent to 100 percent efficient range over the long term, whenever possible. Shared use of a facility by more than one cluster may be the most feasible facility plan in some cases, taking into consideration the impact of the resulting articulation pattern on the community. Plans should be fiscally responsible to minimize capital and operating costs whenever feasible.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous


Well, let's get more precise here: is MCPS planning to "use race for the purposes of involuntary school assignments. ", or use race as an important factor in doing so?

If so, is it something people can sue?


No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous


Well, let's get more precise here: is MCPS planning to "use race for the purposes of involuntary school assignments. ", or use race as an important factor in doing so?

If so, is it something people can sue?

No.

Isn't "racial/ethnic composition of the student population" the first factor in the "Demographic characteristics of student populations" that the board claims to use when considering school options?
One can probably say "not entirely on race", but a simple answer "no" is probably not accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this discussion about the RFP coming out for the boundary study and now the sound bites out there between Biden and Harris about busing policies in the 70s and 80s, do you really think busing is a practical solution to the MCPS achievement gap? I just don't see busing as a solution that will have us all living happily ever after. And as Biden said, it would be a "bankrupt policy." I am not as concerned about boundary changes, but I know others are. As long as students don't have to have ridiculously long commutes, I don't see it as much of an issue. But I also don't see the boundary changes (without busing) making much of an impact. A perfect example are some of the coveted W boundaries, which if changed, would not really change much of the racial landscape within the schools. We live in the Churchill district, and moving boundaries will not make much of an impact...we border other W districts, so there's that. What a waste of money.

I come from SF, where busing and a city-wide lottery destroyed the public school system.

Don't trust any politician who tells you that wide, mandatory busing is the solution to any problem -- the families you want in the system are the ones who move to the burbs or beyond, or go private.